JUDGMENT R. SUBBIAH, J. 1. Both the above appeals arise out of the same award dated 28.02.2012 in M.C.O.P. Nos. 2354 and 2372 of 2005 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge), Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant. Hence, they are disposed of by way of this Common Judgment. 2. Since both the appeals have been filed questioning the finding of the Claims Tribunal in fixing the liability to pay compensation alone, I am not dealing with the other aspects of the award passed by the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimants in both the appeals that on 06.11.2004, about 18.40 hours, while the 1st respondent/claimant in CMA No. 3549 of 2013, was riding a two wheeler, bearing Registration No. TN-10C-8799, along with a pillion rider Velusamy, the 1st respondent/claimant in CMA No. 3550 of 2013, from North to South direction, near Gundumedu Check Post, a lorry, bearing Registration No. TN-20X-8999, which was going ahead of the motor cycle, suddenly took a turn in a rash and negligent manner, driven by its driver and in that process, it dashed against the motor cycle. In the said accident, the respondent/claimant in both the appeals sustained grievous injuries. Hence, they made claim petitions as against both the owner of the lorry and the insurer of the vehicle. 4. The claims made by the respondent/claimant were resisted by the Insurance Company contending that at the time of accident, the lorry, bearing Registration No. TN-20X-8999, was parked on the left side of the road. It was the rider of the two wheeler, who came in a rash and negligent manner, hit the lorry on the rear side and thus, invited the accident. Therefore, the entire negligence is only on the part of the rider of the two wheeler, bearing Registration No. TN-10C-8799 and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. In order to prove their claim, on the side of the respondent/claimant in both the claims, the rider of the motor cycle examined himself as PW1 and the pillion rider examined himself as PW2, besides examining one Mr. N. Saichandran as PW3, one Mr. T.S. Kalkura as PW4 and one Mr. R. Rajappa as PW5, who have rendered corroborative evidence and marked 32 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.32. N. Saichandran as PW3, one Mr. T.S. Kalkura as PW4 and one Mr. R. Rajappa as PW5, who have rendered corroborative evidence and marked 32 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.32. RW1 is the official from the appellant Insurance Company. Ex.R.1 and Ex.R2 are the copy of Policy and the Investigation Report, respectively. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence adduced on either side, has come to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry, bearing Registration No. TN-20X-8999, insured with the appellant Insurance Company was negligent, in causing the accident. By coming to such a conclusion, the Claims Tribunal has fixed the liability on the Insurance Company, as the insurer of the vehicle, to pay compensation to the respondent/claimant in both the claim petitions. Thereafter, the Claims Tribunal has passed an award for a total sum of Rs. 1,77,500/- as compensation to the injured in MCOP No. 2354 of 2005. Similarly, in respect of claim made by the respondent/claimant in MCOP No. 2372 of 2005, the Claims Tribunal has passed an award for a total sum of Rs. 2,69,500/- as compensation. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeals have been filed. 7. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the materials available on record. From a perusal of the materials on record, I find that in the Accident Register in A.R. No. 28, in Hospital No. 82393, dated 06.11.2004, in respect of the pillion rider, it has been mentioned that while riding a two wheeler as pillion rider hit against the rear end of a parked lorry, which would clearly prove that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler also. Perusal of records further discloses that the sketch prepared by the police was not marked along the investigation report. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said document. The accident had occurred on 06.11.2004 but, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 20.11.2004. Perusal of Ex.P.1-First Information Report shows that the rider of the motor cycle has caused the accident by hitting a parked lorry. The driver of the lorry was not examined on the side of the respondent. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said document. The accident had occurred on 06.11.2004 but, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 20.11.2004. Perusal of Ex.P.1-First Information Report shows that the rider of the motor cycle has caused the accident by hitting a parked lorry. The driver of the lorry was not examined on the side of the respondent. However, the evidence on record would show that at the time of the accident, the said lorry was parked on the road side without any signal. In the said circumstances, I am of the opinion that 75% of liability could be fixed on the driver of the lorry and 25% of liability could be fixed on the rider of the motor cycle. Therefore, the respondent/claimant in CMA No. 3549 of 2013 is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,33,125/- (1,77,500 x 75%) with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interests and costs has already been deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos. 2354 and 2372 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge), Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 10. In CMA No. 3549 of 2013, the appellant /respondent is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 1,33,125/- (Rupees one lakh thirty three thousand one hundred and twenty five only) with proportionate accrued interests and costs, by making necessary applications before the Claims Tribunal. In CMA No. 3550 of 2013, the appellant/respondent, who is the pillion rider, is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, by making necessary applications before the Claims Tribunal. The appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw the excess amount, more than that of the modified award amount. With the above modification, CMA No. 3549 of 2013 is partly allowed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA No. 3550 of 2013 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.